Nordic success – the case of
SwedenStaffan Wahlén
Swedish National Agency for Higher
Education

16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic Symposium

Backgroundz 340 000 undergraduate students
z 25 000 postgraduate students
z 14 state universitiesz 3 semi-private institutionsz 22 universities including 7 colleges ofvisual and performing art

16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic SymposiumDegreesz 3 year Bachelor’s degreez 1 year’s Master’s degreez 4 year’s PhD
z Bologna 3-2-3 (3-1-4)

16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic SymposiumObjectives
z Assurance (control; accreditation)– Growth of higher education; 50 per cent goalz Enhancementz Information – no ranking or league tables

16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic Symposium

Ingredientsz Accreditation (1992 - )z Institutional quality audit (1995 – 2002)z Subject and programme review (2001 - )z Thematic evaluations

16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic SymposiumAccreditationz Accreditation for master’s degrees(including Bologna masters)z Accreditation for professional degrees
z Accreditation for attaining university status

16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic SymposiumInstitutional quality audit
z Main goal – enhancementz Review of institutional quality workz Self-evaluation – peer review – site visit –public report – follow-up

16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic SymposiumQuality audit IIz Aspects considered (among others)– Academic leadership– Cooperation with stakeholders– Active participation of staff– Integration of quality work
– Evaluation and follow-up activities– Internationalisation– Gender equality
16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic SymposiumSubject and programme
reviewz Evaluation of all subjects and programmes

leading to a degree (1500 reviews)
z Six-year cyclez Peer review with site visit, public report,
feedback and follow-up (800 peers)z Decision by the Agency (“accreditation”)

16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic SymposiumSubject and programme
review IIz Aspects considered– Prerequisites (resources and teacher

qualifications, library, laboratories etc)
– Objectives and organisation– Teaching and examination methods– Theses– Completion rates

16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic SymposiumThematic quality audits
How do universities deal withz Internationalisationz Co-operation with societyz Student influencez Gender equality
z Student support?
16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic SymposiumSpecificities
z Student involvement (including PhDstudents) as assessorsz A complete national picture of subjects andprogrammesz Sanctionsz The inclusion of PhD programmes
z Systematic follow-up
16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic SymposiumImpact of quality audit
z Improvement of university leadership andstrategies for quality assurancez Improvement of student influencez Improvement of co-operation withstakeholders (industry, employers etc.)
z Difficult to ascertain the impact of quality
work on provision
16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic SymposiumImpact of programme andsubject review
z About 10 per cent of programmes have beenquestioned, none have had their degrees revokedz Improved teaching staff development andqualificationsz Co-operation, specialisation, concentrationz Teacher education – changes in Higher Education
Ordinance, changes in organisation and teaching
staff, changes in syllabi, course material andexamination.
16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic SymposiumTo practise what you teachz Quality assurance of agency activities:- continuous internal monitoring- annual analytical summary- feedback from various actors- external monitoring and review

16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic SymposiumNew modelz HEI internal systems for QA andenhancementz A small number of subject and programmeevaluations based on monitoring dataz Thematic evaluations (study guidance etc)
z Excellence in teaching and learningz Review of the right to award degrees
16/10/2006

Japan - Nordic Symposium